I'm in Melbourne to advocate for free software users and developers at the latest round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), and I'm chomping at the bit to share a little good news with you all. The tone of the discussion here has turned much more friendly to us—and it's thanks to your activism.

The Free Software Foundation submitted comments to support exemptions to allow users to install free software on all kinds of devices, and view and play media encumbered with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

If you browse the Web today, your browser will probably download and run nonfree JavaScript software on your behalf. You should be able to say no to that software—but to date, that hasn't been practical. JavaScript License Web Labels are our newest effort to make this easier.

Last week, Apple announced ebook authoring software called iBooks
Author. As you would expect from Apple, the software is completely
proprietary—but the license includes some terms that are so
restrictive, they shock even Apple's fans.

Earlier this week, the Mozilla Foundation published the Mozilla
Public License (MPL) version 2.0. This is a major update to their
flagship license, which covers most of the Foundation's own free
software projects, as well as others'.

Printers that can be reprogrammed by malicious print jobs are a
security risk. So are printers that only run code signed by the
manufacturer. For real security, printers should be running free
software controlled by its owners.

This week there's been a lot of fuss about Amazon releasing source code for software on its Kindle devices, including the Kindle Fire. A lot of the hype we've seen is simply unwarranted; while you can download the source code that Amazon was legally required to publish, most of the software on the device remains proprietary, and every Kindle is still Defective by Design.

Lately I've noticed an uptick in the number of pundits who claim that free software developers have begun to prefer using lax free software licenses that don't have copyleft (like the Apache License) over ones that do (like the GPL) for their projects. They back up this claim by pointing to surveys that show increased adoption of lax licenses in free software projects, or high-profile projects that have recently adopted such licenses. That evidence tells a different story, however, when you better understand its background.

We recently published a new page on our site, entitled "How to choose a license for your own work." It's a comprehensive set of license recommendations for new projects. It explains what factors are important to consider when making licensing decisions, and suggests specific licenses for different scenarios.